Philippine Airlines, Inc.
v CA & Zapatos  In Iligan City, private respondent hired a car from the airport to Kolambugan,
G.R. No. 82619 | September 15, 1993 | Bellosillo, J.
Topic: Duration of Responsibility; Art 1736 NCC
Petitioner: Philippine Airlines, Inc.
Respondents: CA & Pedro Zapatos
Facts
On 25 November 1976, private respondent filed a complaint for damages for breach
of contract of carriage against PAL, before CFI (now RTC) of Misamis Occidental, at
Ozamiz City.
According to private respondent:
 On 2 August 1976, he was among the 21 passengers of PAL Flight 477 that
took off from Cebu bound for Ozamiz City. The routing of this flight was
Cebu-Ozamiz-Cotabato.
 While on flight and just about 15 minutes before landing at Ozamiz City, the
pilot received a radio message that the airport was closed due to heavy rains
and inclement weather and that he should proceed to Cotabato City instead.
 Upon arrival at Cotabato City, the PAL Station Agent informed the
passengers of their options to:
o return to Cebu on Flight 560 of the same day and then to Ozamiz
City on 4 August 1975
o take the next flight to Cebu the following day
o remain at Cotabato and take the next available flight to Ozamiz City
on 5 August 1975.
 The Station Agent likewise informed them that Flight 560 bound for Manila
would make a stop-over at Cebu to bring some of the diverted passengers;
o that there were only 6 seats available as there were already
confirmed passengers for Manila; and, that the basis for priority
would be the check-in sequence at Cebu.
 Private respondent chose to return to Cebu but was not accommodated
because he checked-in as passenger No. 9 on Flight 477.
o He insisted on being given priority over the confirmed passengers
in the accommodation, but the Station Agent refused private
respondent’s demand explaining that the latter’s predicament was
not due to PAL’s own doing but to a force majeure.
 Private respondent tried to stop the departure of Flight 560 as his personal
belongings, including a package containing a camera which a certain Miwa
from Japan asked him to deliver to Mrs. Fe Obid of Gingoog City, were still
on board. His plea fell on deaf ears. PAL then issued to private respondent a
free ticket to Iligan City, which the latter received under protest.
 Private respondent was left at the airport and could not even hitch a ride in
the Ford Fiera loaded with PAL personnel. PAL neither provided private
respondent with transportation from the airport to the city proper nor food
and accommodation for his stay in Cotabato City.
 The following day, private respondent purchased a PAL ticket to Iligan City.
He informed PAL personnel that he would not use the free ticket because he
was filing a case against PAL.
Lanao del Norte, reaching Ozamiz City by crossing the bay in a launch. His
personal effects including the camera, which were valued at P2,000.00, were
no longer recovered.
PAL’s answer (January 13 1977):
 Denied that it unjustifiably refused to accommodate private eespondent
 There was simply no more seat for private respondent on Flight 560 since
there were only 6 seats available and the priority of accommodation on Flight
560 was based on the check-in sequence in Cebu;
 The first 6 priority passengers on Flight 477 chose to take Flight 560;
 Its Station Agent explained in a courteous and polite manner to all
passengers the reason for PAL’s inability to transport all of them back to
Cebu;
 The stranded passengers agreed to avail of the options and had their
respective tickets exchanged for their onward trips;
 It was only the private respondent who insisted on being given priority in the
accommodation;
 Pieces of checked-in baggage and hand-carried items of the Ozamiz City
passengers were removed from the aircraft;
 The reason for the pilot’s inability to land at Ozamiz City airport was because
the runway was wet due to rains thus posing a threat to the safety of both
passengers and aircraft;
 Such reason of force majeure was a valid justification for the pilot to bypass
Ozamiz City and proceed directly to Cotabato City.
TC: (June 4 1981) ruled in favor of Zapatos and against PAL
CA: affirmed
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari
Issue
W/N PAL was negligent and, consequently, liable for damages – YES (but Court
reduced damages)
Held
Re: admission of evidence (skip if u want but dagdag facts siya)
In its petition, PAL vigorously maintains that:
 Private respondent’s principal cause of action was its alleged denial of his
demand for priority over the confirmed passengers on Flight 560.
 The complaint did not impute to PAL neglect in failing to attend to the needs
of the diverted passengers;
 The question of negligence was not and never put in issue by the pleadings
or proved at the trial.
Contrary to the above arguments, private respondent’s amended complaint touched
on PAL’s indifference and inattention to his predicament.
 "10. That by virtue of the refusal of the defendant through its agent in
Cotabato to accommodate and allow the plaintiff to take and board the plane
 back to Cebu, and by accommodating and allowing passengers from
Cotabato for Cebu in his stead and place, thus forcing the plaintiff against his
will, to be left and stranded in Cotabato, exposed to the peril and danger of
muslim rebels plundering at the time, the plaintiff, as a consequence,
suffered mental anguish, mental torture, social humiliation, bismirched
reputation and wounded feeling, all amounting to a conservative amount of
P30,000.00”library
To substantiate this aspect of apathy, private respondent testified:
 "A. I did not even notice that I was I think the last passenger or the last
person out of the PAL employees and army personnel that were left there. I
did not notice that when I was already outside of the building after our
conversation.
 Q. What did you do next?
 A. I banished (sic) because it seems that there was a war not far from the
airport. The sound of guns and the soldiers were plenty.
 Q. After that what did you do?
 A. I tried to look for a transportation that could bring me down to the City of
Cotabato.
 Q. Were you able to go there?
 A. I was at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening more or less and it was a
private jeep that I boarded. I was even questioned why I and who am (sic) I
then. Then I explained my side that I am (sic) stranded passenger. Then
they brought me downtown at Cotabato.
 Q. During your conversation with the Manager were you not offered any
vehicle or transportation to Cotabato airport downtown?
 A. In fact I told him (Manager) now I am by-passed passenger here which is
not my destination what can you offer me. Then they answered, "it is not my
fault. Let us forget that.
 Q. When the Manager told you that offer was there a vehicle ready?
 A. Not yet. Not long after that the Ford Fiera loaded with PAL personnel was
passing by going to the City of Cotabato and I stopped it to take me a ride
because there was no more available transportation but I was not
accommodated." library
Significantly, PAL did not seem to mind the introduction of evidence which focused on
its alleged negligence in caring for its stranded passengers. The protest or objection
against the admission of evidence should be presented at the time the evidence is
offered, and that the proper time to make protest or objection to the admissibility of
evidence is when the question is presented to the witness or at the time the answer
thereto is given.
PAL instead attempted to rebut the aforequoted testimony. In the process, it failed to
substantiate its counter allegation for want of concrete proof
 "Atty. Rubin O. Rivera (PAL’s counsel): You said PAL refused to help you
when you were in Cotabato, is that right?
 Private respondent: Yes.
 Q. Did you ask them to help you regarding any offer of transportation or of
any other matter asked of them?
 A. Yes, he (PAL PERSONNEL) said what is? It is not our fault.
 Q. Are you not aware that one fellow passenger even claimed that he was
given Hotel accommodation because they have no money?
 A. No, sir, that was never offered to me. I said, I tried to stop them but they
were already riding that PAL pick-up jeep, and I was not accommodated."
Having joined in the issue over the alleged lack of care it exhibited towards its
passengers, PAL cannot now turn around and feign surprise at the outcome of the
case. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied
consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised
in the pleadings.
Re: duration of responsibility + damages MAIN!!!
 With regard to the award of damages affirmed by the appellate court, PAL
argues that the same is unfounded.
o It asserts that it should not be charged with the task of looking after
the passengers’ comfort and convenience because the diversion of
the flight was due to a fortuitous event, and that if made liable, an
added burden is given to PAL which is over and beyond its duties
under the contract of carriage.
o It submits that granting arguendo that negligence exists, PAL
cannot be liable in damages in the absence of fraud or bad faith;
that private respondent failed to apprise PAL of the nature of his trip
and possible business losses; and, that private respondent himself
is to be blamed for unreasonably refusing to use the free ticket
which PAL issued.
 The contract of air carriage is a peculiar one. Being imbued with public
interest, the law requires common carriers to carry the passengers
safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the
circumstances.
 Air France v. Carrascoso  "A contract to transport passengers is quite
different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation. And this,
because of the relation which an air carrier sustains with the public. Its
business is mainly with the travelling public. It invites people to avail of the
comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore,
generates a relation attended with a public duty . . ."
 The position taken by PAL in this case clearly illustrates its failure to grasp
the exacting standard required by law. Undisputably, PAL’s diversion of its
flight due to inclement weather was a fortuitous event. Nonetheless,
such occurrence did not terminate PAL’s contract with its passengers.
o Being in the business of air carriage and the sole one to operate in
the country, PAL is deemed equipped to deal with situations as in
the case at bar.
 What we said in one case once again must be stressed, i.e., the relation
of carrier and passenger continues until the latter has been landed at
the port of destination and has left the carrier’s premises.
 Hence, PAL necessarily would still have to exercise extraordinary diligence
in safeguarding the comfort, convenience and safety of its stranded
passengers until they have reached their final destination.
 On this score, PAL grossly failed considering the then ongoing battle
between government forces and Muslim rebels in Cotabato City and the fact
that the private respondent was a stranger to the place.
 As the CA correctly ruled:
o "While the failure of plaintiff in the first instance to reach his
destination at Ozamis City in accordance with the contract of
carriage was due to the closure of the airport on account of rain and
inclement weather which was radioed to defendant 15 minutes
before landing, it has not been disputed by defendant airline that
Ozamis City has no all-weather airport and has to cancel its flight to
Ozamis City or by-pass it in the event of inclement weather.
o Knowing this fact, it becomes the duty of defendant to provide
all means of comfort and convenience to its passengers when
they would have to be left in a strange place in case of such
by-passing.
o The steps taken by defendant airline company towards this end has
not been put in evidence, especially for those 7 others who were
not accommodated in the return trip to Cebu, only 6 of the 21
having been so accommodated.
o It appears that plaintiff had to leave on the next flight 2 days later. If
the cause of non-fulfillment of the contract is due to a fortuitous
event, it has to be the sole and only cause (Art. 1755 C.C., Art.
1733 C.C.)
o Since part of the failure to comply with the obligation of common
carrier to deliver its passengers safely to their destination lay in the
defendant’s failure to provide comfort and convenience to its
stranded passengers using extra-ordinary diligence, the cause of
non-fulfillment is not solely and exclusively due to fortuitous event,
but due to something which defendant airline could have prevented,
defendant becomes liable to plaintiff."
 While we find PAL remiss in its duty of extending utmost care to private
respondent while being stranded in Cotabato City, there is no sufficient
basis to conclude that PAL failed to inform him about his non-
accommodation on Flight 560, or that it was inattentive to his queries
relative thereto.
 On 3 August 1975, the Station Agent reported to his Branch Manager in
Cotabato City that —
o "3. Of the fifteen stranded passengers two pax elected to take F478
on August 05, three pax opted to take F442 August 03. The
remaining 10 including subject requested that they be instead
accommodated on F446 CBO-IGN the following day where they
intended to take the surface transportation to OZC.
o Mr. Pedro Zapatos had by then been very vocal and boisterous at
the counter and we tactfully managed to steer him inside the
Station Agent’s office. Mr. Pedro Zapatos then adamantly insisted
that all the diverted passengers should have been given priority
over the originating passengers of F560 whether confirmed or
otherwise. We explained our policies and after awhile he seemed
pacified and thereafter took his ticket (in-lieued (sic) to CBO-IGN,
COCON basis) at the counter in the presence of five other
passengers who were waiting for their tickets too.
o The rest of the diverted pax had left earlier after being assured that
their ticket will be ready the following day."
 Aforesaid Report being an entry in the course of business is prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. Private respondent, apart from his
testimony, did not offer any controverting evidence. If indeed PAL omitted to
give information about the options available to its diverted passengers, it
would have been deluged with complaints. But, only private respondent
complained
 Private respondent’s insistence on being given priority in accommodation
was unreasonable considering the fortuitous event and that there was a
sequence to be observed in the booking, i.e., in the order the passengers
checked-in at their port of origin. His intransigence in fact was the main
cause for his having to stay at the airport longer than was necessary
o "Atty. Rivera: Q. And, you were saying that despite the fact that
according to your testimony there were at least 16 passengers who
were stranded there in Cotabato airport according to your
testimony, and later you said that there were no other people left
there at that time, is that correct?
o A. Yes, I did not see anyone there around. I think I was the only
civilian who was left there.
o Q. Why is it that it took you long time to leave that place?
o A. Because I was arguing with the PAL personnel." 26 
 Anent the plaint that PAL employees were disrespectful and inattentive
toward private respondent, the records are bereft of evidence to support the
same. On the contrary, private respondent was attended to not only by the
personnel of PAL but also by its Manager.
In the light of these findings, we find the award of moral damages of P50,000.00
unreasonably excessive; hence, we reduce the same to P10,000.00. Conformably
herewith, the award of exemplary damages is also reduced to P5,000.00.
With regard to the award of actual damages in the amount of P5,000.00 representing
private respondent’s alleged business losses occasioned by his stay at Cotabato City,
we find the same unwarranted. Private respondent’s testimony that he had a
scheduled business "transaction of shark liver oil supposedly to have been
consummated on August 3, 1975 in the morning" and that "since (private respondent)
was out for nearly two weeks I missed to buy about 10 barrels of shark liver oil," are
purely speculative.
WHEREFORE the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with modification however
that the award of moral damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) is reduced to
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) while the exemplary damages of Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00) is also reduced to Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). The award
of actual damages in the amount Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) representing
business losses occasioned by private respondent’s being stranded in Cotabato City
is deleted. SO ORDERED.